Turkey Preparing for War with Israel

[Anemos Major]

Right, let's just get this straight.

Firstly ,Turkey is not going to war with Israel. There are a number of reasons why.

i) War is a very, very big diplomatic commitment. What people here don't seem to realise is that the gap between withdrawing a portion of your diplomatic mission and declaring war is huge, especially in the modern world; you'd need a lot of escalation to get there, and as it stands, that escalation hasn't occurred.

ii) Turkey is far too close to the Western world to go to war with Israel. It has close enough ties to the Europeans to spark off debates about Turkish entry into the EU, and to be in NATO. Any problems will be prevented from escalating in the interests of both nations, by both nations, and what problems exist will be resolved diplomatically. For God's sake, the US still has troops in Turkey.

iii) Even if there was to be a war, you would essentially have a Suez type scenario where the USA would step in and rap both parties on the knuckles for stepping out of line within the US sphere of influence. I'm not saying that the US has an iron grip over all other nations, but a war between Turkey and Israel would be sufficiently catastrophic to warrant forward intervention and prevention.

iv) The Turkish Air Force has 220 F-16s, all of which are C/D standard. All of their F-4 Phantom IIs are specialised and used for ground support/reconnaissance roles; that gives the Turkish Air Force a highly efficient use for their outdated fighters, and rather a formidable arsenal of modern ones. Add to that the fact that unlike Israel, Turkey domestically produces her F-16s, and you should probably be having second thoughts about your confidence in the IAF's absolute dominance.

[Empires Empire]

Yeah. It isn't peaceful. Boarding without consent is an inherently hostile action. This has been the case since the term even bloody existed.

I've compared it to firing a warning shot and sinking the vessel... Yep... Boarding without consent from helicopters still isn't peaceful. Sorry.

Go try what I said then, try to storm the gates at your local military base. Until you do this, everything you say about Israel being different, is just phony bias to cover your real intentions. Cowardly.

[Southern Patriots]

http://www.politicususa.com/en/the-gaza-strip-has-historically-never-been-part-of-israel

Looks like it was never your house.

So, you quoted some freaky leftist conspiracy house, good job, next youll quote jewwatch and stormfront. Just stop. I know you think you're all being slick, but you're not. You're not going to tell us the sky is red.

I quoted nothing, I pointed you to a historical evaluation of that territory. Is it incorrect? Can you disprove it, or is the best you can do is to feebly try to ignore it?

[Empires Empire]

Right, let's just get this straight.

Firstly ,Turkey is not going to war with Israel. There are a number of reasons why.

They know this, its just a wishful thinking rant of Israel haters dreaming of Her destruction. Turkey's OK by us, we're OK by them. Erdogan and pals just did that diplomatic nonsense to satisfy and shut up the populists so they'll get bored and sit down after they fill up a few forums with nonsense and get it out of their systems.

[Alyakia]

Yeah. It isn't peaceful. Boarding without consent is an inherently hostile action. This has been the case since the term even bloody existed.

I've compared it to firing a warning shot and sinking the vessel... Yep... Boarding without consent from helicopters still isn't peaceful. Sorry.

Go try what I said then, try to storm the gates at your local military base. Until you do this, everything you say about Israel being different, is just phony bias to cover your real intentions. Cowardly.

You seem to be responding to posts. I made another post. Respond to that one too please~

tbh people have literally sailed into the military base where the nuclear deterrent is on canoes before and not been shot but this little scenario of yours is completely irrelevant so

You really love to cry bias. Did you actually read all of the pages or just look at the number?

[Kemaliste]

For God's sake, the US still has troops in Turkey.

Thanks to traitor government. When my country gains its fully independence and give up to be dependent to foreign powers through a patriot revolution, Turkey will be a MORE respectful country and that's what Israel should be worried about then.

[Empires Empire]

I quoted nothing, I pointed you to a historical evaluation of that territory. Is it incorrect? Can you disprove it, or is the best you can do is to feebly try to ignore it?

The site cites some truths yes and excludes a lot in the process to spin it in a way that makes Israeli control of Gaza a bad thing. Gaza was an absolute nightmare to live in under Egypt's control, it got much safer under Israeli control, and then with the "disengagement" you types pushed, now the citizens there have to live in absolute fear of being branded traitor by hamas. Imagine you're a Palestinian trying to live your little life, your kid is born with a congenital heart disorder, she doesn't have long to live. Israel offers free help and will save your child, Hamas says they'll shoot you and drown your daughter when you get back for daring to let Jews save your child. Assuming you and she somehow survive this, you must constantly watch what you say and what websites you visit or they come for you in the night. Your daughter is at severe risk of rape or sex trafficing from the 'hamas police' themselves. They try to convince her to murder herself with explosives to kill Israeli shoppers at a strip mall. They shoot rockets off the roof of the building your daughter is going to school in, daring Israelis to save themselves at the expense of your beloved only child. The Hamas main headquarters is a bunker under a hospital, so that if they are to be toppled like Gadaffi, you'd have to massacre all those inside to do so. Ya, Gaza is so much better without the IDF there keeping order. You live in reality, sure.

Thank HaShem we'll soon stop listening to the likes of you and do what's necessary to ensure anybody not engaged in murder and insurrection can live their lives without fear again. I pray for the day Jew and Muslim can live together in these places again free of these terrorist nazis your ilk funds and preaches for.

[Southern Patriots]

I quoted nothing, I pointed you to a historical evaluation of that territory. Is it incorrect? Can you disprove it, or is the best you can do is to feebly try to ignore it?

The site cites some truths yes and excludes a lot in the process to spin it in a way that makes Israeli control of Gaza a bad thing. Gaza was an absolute nightmare to live in under Egypt's control, it got much safer under Israeli control, and then with the "disengagement" you types pushed, now the citizens there have to live in absolute fear of being branded traitor by hamas. Imagine you're a Palestinian trying to live your little life, your kid is born with a congenital heart disorder, she doesn't have long to live. Israel offers free help and will save your child, Hamas says they'll shoot you and drown your daughter when you get back for daring to let Jews save your child. Assuming you and she somehow survive this, you must constantly watch what you say and what websites you visit or they come for you in the night. Your daughter is at severe risk of rape or sex trafficing from the 'hamas police' themselves. They try to convince her to murder herself with explosives to kill Israeli shoppers at a strip mall. They shoot rockets off the roof of the building your daughter is going to school in, daring Israelis to save themselves at the expense of your beloved only child. The Hamas main headquarters is a bunker under a hospital, so that if they are to be toppled like Gadaffi, you'd have to massacre all those inside to do so. Ya, Gaza is so much better without the IDF there keeping order. You live in reality, sure.

Thank HaShem we'll soon stop listening to the likes of you and do what's necessary to ensure anybody not engaged in murder and insurrection can live their lives without fear again. I pray for the day Jew and Muslim can live together in these places again free of these terrorist nazis your ilk funds and preaches for.

A fun rant, but again you haven't actually addressed the claims made.

[Anemos Major]

So, you quoted some freaky leftist conspiracy house, good job, next youll quote jewwatch and stormfront. Just stop. I know you think you're all being slick, but you're not. You're not going to tell us the sky is red.

I quoted nothing, I pointed you to a historical evaluation of that territory. Is it incorrect? Can you disprove it, or is the best you can do is to feebly try to ignore it?

Two points.

The 'it was historically ours' argument is, I'm afraid, complete and utter nonsense. There is a difference between giving the Jewish people land to settle as a coherent national body, which is absolutely acceptable, and their taking others' land using historical pretexts. I mean, the Roman Empire used to own the vast majority of Europe until their borders were pushed back by 'invading' barbarians; is Italy allowed to then claim sovereignty over all that territory? Absolutely not. What Israel has been doing, especially in areas like Gaza, is nothing short of invasion and oppression, and it's hard to believe otherwise.

Legally speaking, in fact, Gaza is not Israel's territory. UNGA Resolution 181's partition of the area cited Gaza as Palestinian land, with no subsequent resolutions changing that fact; this, in fact, shows that the UN considers such areas to be 'occupied', rather than legally Israeli. Israelis may question the right of the UN to decide such national boundaries; in that case, they would do well to remember that the initial existence of their state was confirmed by the same body.

[Southern Patriots]

I quoted nothing, I pointed you to a historical evaluation of that territory. Is it incorrect? Can you disprove it, or is the best you can do is to feebly try to ignore it?

Two points.

The 'it was historically ours' argument is, I'm afraid, complete and utter nonsense. There is a difference between giving the Jewish people land to settle as a coherent national body, which is absolutely acceptable, and their taking others' land using historical pretexts. I mean, the Roman Empire used to own the vast majority of Europe until their borders were pushed back by 'invading' barbarians; is Italy allowed to then claim sovereignty over all that territory? Absolutely not. What Israel has been doing, especially in areas like Gaza, is nothing short of invasion and oppression, and it's hard to believe otherwise.

Legally speaking, in fact, Gaza is not Israel's territory. UNGA Resolution 181's partition of the area cited Gaza as Palestinian land, with no subsequent resolutions changing that fact; this, in fact, shows that the UN considers such areas to be 'occupied', rather than legally Israeli. Israelis may question the right of the UN to decide such national boundaries; in that case, they would do well to remember that the initial existence of their state was confirmed by the same body.

Good points, A M.

Especially that final one about the UN.

[Empires Empire]

A fun rant, but again you haven't actually addressed the claims made.

Neither have you. Gaza does not have an "indigenous population" since such was wiped out over 1500 years ago. It has constantly changed hands between various other powers as the borders in the region shifted. In the end, such is irrelevant. The only chance people there have to live a real life is with the IDF there. You would rather them live under hamas and suffer just to suit your personal politics bias against Israel and Jews however. Good thing we don't listen to you.

Also, I did not say Gaza was always historically Israeli. I said it was in recent times, after Egypt lost control of it. Maybe read what I wrote. Gaza was an independant city-state in most biblical references even.

[Alyakia]

Go try what I said then, try to storm the gates at your local military base. Until you do this, everything you say about Israel being different, is just phony bias to cover your real intentions. Cowardly.

You seem to be responding to posts. I made another post. Respond to that one too please~

tbh people have literally sailed into the military base where the nuclear deterrent is on canoes before and not been shot but this little scenario of yours is completely irrelevant so

You really love to cry bias. Did you actually read all of the pages or just look at the number?

(and have also climbed onto nuclear submarines and spraypainted them without being shot)

[Alyakia]

A fun rant, but again you haven't actually addressed the claims made.

Neither have you. Gaza does not have an "indigenous population" since such was wiped out over 1500 years ago. It has constantly changed hands between various other powers as the borders in the region shifted. In the end, such is irrelevant. The only chance people there have to live a real life is with the IDF there. You would rather them live under hamas and suffer just to suit your personal politics bias against Israel and Jews however. Good thing we don't listen to you.

Prove Southern Patriots is baised against Jews, please.

[Anemos Major]

They know this, its just a wishful thinking rant of Israel haters dreaming of Her destruction. Turkey's OK by us, we're OK by them. Erdogan and pals just did that diplomatic nonsense to satisfy and shut up the populists so they'll get bored and sit down after they fill up a few forums with nonsense and get it out of their systems.

I think this works the other way round, too. Don't get me wrong, after all; I certainly don't support the right of the Israelis to place an embargo on Gaza.

Yes, the Israelis have every right to ensure the security of their nation. Yes, the Israelis have every right to retain a nation; I am sickened by people who claim that they do not have the right to exist as such.

But the Palestinians have all those rights too. And what sickens me most about the entire affairs is that Israel is able to arbitrarily shift the national boundaries of the area, literally take over and occupy a neighbouring nation and then place embargoes on those people inside. Israel can place blockades on its own land if she wants to, but I'm afraid Gaza isn't part of that, both legally and morally.

[Empires Empire]

I think this works the other way round, too. Don't get me wrong, after all; I certainly don't support the right of the Israelis to place an embargo on Gaza.

Yes, the Israelis have every right to ensure the security of their nation. Yes, the Israelis have every right to retain a nation; I am sickened by people who claim that they do not have the right to exist as such.

But the Palestinians have all those rights too. And what sickens me most about the entire affairs is that Israel is able to arbitrarily shift the national boundaries of the area, literally take over and occupy a neighbouring nation and then place embargoes on those people inside. Israel can place blockades on its own land if she wants to, but I'm afraid Gaza isn't part of that, both legally and morally.

Except that embargo is the only thing keeping your precious palestinians a little safer from the hamas monster that the disengagement has given control. Your right, I dont think an embargo is a solution, I think destroying Hamas and retaking control of Gaza is the only way anyone in the neighborhood will be able to sleep sound. I dont think it's "historically ours". I think it's strategically necessary, and a humanitarian act. Believe me, policing gaza is not fun nor easy. I may end up there myself if such a plan is enacted, being shot at, but the locals and the neighboring towns will benefit from no longer being under threat of constant impending doom. So hey, I'm OK with this. I'll gladly go take that little bunker from Hamas the hard way, infantry can do anything. So, is this really about wanting the people there to no longer suffer or just about something to blame Israel with? I'm all for bettering the quality of life in Gaza, why don't we all focus on the real threat of Hamas instead of blaming the embargo that only serves to keep tools of further murder out of their hands? Want the embargo lifted, Hamas has to go.

[Anemos Major]

Neither have you. Gaza does not have an "indigenous population" since such was wiped out over 1500 years ago. It has constantly changed hands between various other powers as the borders in the region shifted. In the end, such is irrelevant. The only chance people there have to live a real life is with the IDF there. You would rather them live under hamas and suffer just to suit your personal politics bias against Israel and Jews however. Good thing we don't listen to you.

I've never heard such tripe before. Hamas is a citizen army, primarily; in case you hadn't noticed, the vast majority of their members come from the disgruntled. Unlike Al Qaeda, these people aren't taking the fight to others in the name of religious fundamentalism; where they may be hardline Islamists within their ranks, rather a lot of them are joining Hamas to expel what they perceive to be 'an invader'.

The IDF isn't necessary, in fact. For a long time, Fatah was the historically dominant force in the area, a diplomatic force that developed from the 'efforts' of the PLO, and under them, the Palestinian Authority more than aptly demonstrated the fact that Palestinians were capable of peaceful self-determination. The rise of Hamas is actually a rather clear cut example of why the IDF is a destabilising factor in the area; arguably, the root of Fatah's downfall and its replacement with the younger, more militant Hamas was through the ability of the latter to capitalise on the events of the First Intifada, which only became a civilian uprising due to popular discontent under Israeli occupation.

No, I'm not condoning the actions of Hamas; terrorism constitutes arbitrary and unacceptable attacks against civilians and nations, and must be prevented accordingly. But to me, the demolition of houses to make room for Israeli settlements in Palestinian land backed up by military force, and the many Palestinian civilian deaths incurred by the arbitrary usage of force by the IDF are equally unacceptable. A case in point is this; yes, the initial casualties were Israeli, at the hands of Palestinian militants, but how does that justify the abnormally, horrifically high Palestinian civilian casualties, many of which occurred due to IDF soldiers firing on demonstrators?

Also, I did not say Gaza was always historically Israeli. I said it was in recent times, after Egypt lost control of it. Maybe read what I wrote. Gaza was an independant city-state in most biblical references even.

Irrelevant. Historical ownership, especially from thousands of years ago, does not justify modern invasion and occupation. That's all that needs to be said.

[Anemos Major]

Except that embargo is the only thing keeping your precious palestinians a little safer from the hamas monster that the disengagement has given control. Your right, I dont think an embargo is a solution, I think destroying Hamas and retaking control of Gaza is the only way anyone in the neighborhood will be able to sleep sound. I dont think it's "historically ours". I think it's strategically necessary, and a humanitarian act. Believe me, policing gaza is not fun nor easy. I may end up there myself if such a plan is enacted, being shot at, but the locals and the neighboring towns will benefit from no longer being under threat of constant impending doom. So hey, I'm OK with this. I'll gladly go take that little bunker from Hamas the hard way, infantry can do anything. So, is this really about wanting the people there to no longer suffer or just about something to blame Israel with? I'm all for bettering the quality of life in Gaza, why don't we all focus on the real threat of Hamas instead of blaming the embargo that only serves to keep tools of further murder out of their hands? Want the embargo lifted, Hamas has to go.

No, that's a ridiculous assumption. If anybody knows anything about what's safe and unsafe for the Palestinian population, it's the Palestinian population itself; I don't think it's any coincidence that Hamas won a decisive majority in the 2006 Parliamentary elections, while Palestinian civilians are regularly protesting against Israeli occupation. Suggesting that the Palestinians need to have their basic living standards pushed down for their own good is an astounding claim, and wholly unjustifiable; as it stands, that argument is supported only by loose assumptions and empty claims. Try again.

See, the real threat isn't 'Hamas'. The view you're taking is a hideously short term one that revolves solely around removing military opposition to the Israeli presence, and as such, you fail to consider the problems that resulted in the creation of Hamas in the first place. Let's not get this wrong; Hamas is a citizen's movement. These aren't crack Iranian commandos taking part in some grand Islamic conspiracy against Israel, much as though you may want to make it seem as such; these are the young and old of a civilian population taking up arms to fight against what they perceive to be, quite justly given the circumstances, an oppressive and illegal regime. Your last statement is very telling; you say 'Want the embargo lifted, Hamas has to go.' I'm afraid it doesn't work like that. What the embargo does is limit the influx of armaments into the Gaza Strip to some extent. What it also does is cause a massively disproportionate dip in living standards, causing more and more people to resent the Israeli presence and take up arms. So no, your assertion is wrong; let me spell out the reality of the situation for you.

If the embargo remains, Hamas remains in one iteration or another. But if Israel, at the very least, loosens the embargo and gives the Palestinians the nation and land they are legally entitled to, Hamas will disappear. Understood?

[Anemos Major]

For God's sake, the US still has troops in Turkey.

Thanks to traitor government. When my country gains its fully independence and give up to be dependent to foreign powers through a patriot revolution, Turkey will be a MORE respectful country and that's what Israel should be worried about then.

'Independence'? This is particularly amusing, because your statements actually go against some very basic tenets of Kemalism.

Yes, nationalism is a component of Kemalism. But in fact, what you're proposing is that Turkey sever all ties with the US, and establish itself as a militant state asserting its regional dominance through jingoism. That's ridiculous; Kemalism's intent was to create a coherent Turkish nation capable of retaining its own identity, granted, but Turkish involvement in internationally stable bodies like NATO and maintaining regional peace by accommodating US forces both promote concepts of international stability and Turkish participation in international affairs as a stabilising factor.

Kemalism aims to create an internally and externally stable, coherent and responsible Turkish nation that advances, sociopolitically and technologically, with the rest of the Western world. Accommodating US forces does not infringe upon, and indeed aids, these aims; on the other hand, devastating the region with revolutionary conflict creates internal and external divisions and instability that actually go against Ataturk's original goals. Your aim is to divide the nation of Turkey, creating conflict between the introspective extremists and the worldly, and thus external conflict between Turkey and the rest of the world; as such, your aims can't be said to be Kemalist.

[Empires Empire]

So, things we've learned today:
1: This thread was never about a 'war with Israel and Turkey'; we know this wont happen, it's just a 'lets talk about hating Israel' thread, again.

2: Most people seem to think the 'palestinian issue' is a real issue, even though nobody ever called themselves a palestinian at all until Yasser Arafat (an Egyptian, born in Cairo to wealthy parents) said he was at the UN. Arab delegates walked out in disgust at the time, but were later convinced it was part of a greater plan to "war with the Zionist Entity through lawfare" and began to use the palestinian narrative.

3: Most people don't realize that everyone living in the whole region formerly known as the "British Mandate of Palestine" has only been there at most since the late part of the 19th century. The area was mostly arid desert, swamp, and other uninhabitable mess that the Ottomans never cared to reclaim and use (too expensive, and they didn't care) until the Zionist movement fueled by American, German, and Russian Jewish money, set out to reclaim the area. The only people who were there since the Roman empire desolated the land, before the Zionists came to reclaim it (under purchase from the Turkish Ottoman Empire, it was bought, and then the British declared that invalid as they conquered the Ottomans, they took all that land into their 'mandate') were a sparse few Bedouin tribes who did not establish permanent settlements.

4: Most people don't realize "palestinians" are really Egyptians, Syrians, Lebanese, and Saudi's, at the most 3 or 4 generations having lived in the land, all of which during time when it was either purchased by or mandated for the use by Jews to begin with, hence they were never autonomous there and have always known they'd have to live with Jews. Neither group was "there first", these arabs came along with the early Zionists for cheap living and to find work and to escape persecution, they were really rude and killed Jews at random and were hell bent on taking over though, not really friendly folks but meh. There you have it.

5: Most people don't know these people are kept 'refugees' outside the legal definition, as a refugee cannot be a descendant of a person who lived somewhere. Where someone is born is where they are a citizen. Thus, these 'palestinian refugees' today are in fact native of their host country, yet are prohibited citizenship by them and persecuted (see syrian shelling of palestinians, hezbollah anti-palestinian actions against camps in lebanon, saudi and egyptian crimes against them, these go unnoticed by the major news outlets mostly.) as their host countries do not want to add a bunch of poverty stricken people raised to be terrorists into their citizenry. Also, they are used regularly as a weapon against the Jewish state, through propaganda as can be demonstrated by the existence of this thread and the "pro-palestinian movement". Which can essentially be summed up as "Replace Jews with Muslims" movement, as there are no "palestinians". Just people getting royally screwed by the international community to use against Jews.

6: 'Palestinians' will only have freedom when we completely ignore this nonsense coming from the rest of the world, defeat the evil forces bent on using them as human ordinance against the Jewish state, and force their host nations to accept that they were born there, and they are citizens there, regardless of how poor they are or how much terrorism they've been trained to do on their hosts behalf. The Gaza blockade will only come down and people there will only live in peace with Hamas dead and gone, and the IDF back on the streets. This is a clearly proven solution, leftists are counter-intuitive on this point.

7: If a person really wanted to see them stop suffering, they wouldn't be supporting the very terrorist oligarchs and monarchs who are fueling this entire conflict with their greed and hate.

8: If all they really want is for there not to be a Jewish state, well, then they'll see reason to continue this nightmare for the 'palestinians' while pretending to be on their side. Dishonorable to say the least.

Been a pleasure, signing off.

[Alyakia]

This is a thread about Turkey/Israel relations, hurt by an incident related to Palestine. It's pretty obvious how such a thread would lead to this path, and also obvious that you've ignored how half of this thread has actually been "let's hate Turkey too!". We've seriously had at least 5 conversations about the Armenian genocide and pretty much every second page contains Kurds, which is pretty weird for a "let's all hate Israel!" thread.

Yet ANOTHER "you guys are wrong *makes shit up abut what people believe* i am leaving now!"? post.

[Keronians]

Nobody has problem with Jews and Israelis. Government (although I don't like it) explained it as well, saying they just get angry about Israeli government's spoiled acts.

Israeli government killed our citizens and they must pay for this that's all, don't even mention Antisemitism to cut a poor figure here.

Blah blah blah, like if Israeli citizens tried to break a Turkish military blockade they wouldn't be shot? They SHOULD be shot. Let's be realistic. You're just using that as a silly excuse. I'd shoot someone for breaking the blockade that I put on the front of my house, too. Probably for less if I'm in that mood. Welcome to humanity.

Except they weren't even giving a warning, and were in international waters. CLOSER TO CYPRUS THAN ISRAEL.

[Southern Patriots]

Neither have you. Gaza does not have an "indigenous population" since such was wiped out over 1500 years ago. It has constantly changed hands between various other powers as the borders in the region shifted. In the end, such is irrelevant. The only chance people there have to live a real life is with the IDF there. You would rather them live under hamas and suffer just to suit your personal politics bias against Israel and Jews however. Good thing we don't listen to you.

Prove Southern Patriots is baised against Jews, please.

He won't do so, he prefers to call me an Anti-Semite and you a coward.

Either a poor troll or a sad person.

[Anemos Major]

So, things we've learned today:
1: This thread was never about a 'war with Israel and Turkey'; we know this wont happen, it's just a 'lets talk about hating Israel' thread, again.

Actually, the thread started with the usual 'Palestinians are all terrorists' tripe, actually, so you're wrong.

all this because Turkey wants to defend violent criminals and terrorists.

2: Most people seem to think the 'palestinian issue' is a real issue, even though nobody ever called themselves a palestinian at all until Yasser Arafat (an Egyptian, born in Cairo to wealthy parents) said he was at the UN. Arab delegates walked out in disgust at the time, but were later convinced it was part of a greater plan to "war with the Zionist Entity through lawfare" and began to use the palestinian narrative.

Well yes, it is an issue. Palestinian or not, the fact remains that the Israelis have taken land from those who actually own it, be they national bodies or individuals, in a wholly illegal fashion, and then imposed their rule and arbitrary restrictions upon the inhabitants of said land in the interests of 'national security'. It doesn't matter if they consider themselves Palestinian or not. That said, I must question your assertion; following the Arab Congress of 1913, rather a lot of Arab nationalists from the region names themselves 'Palestinians' in their efforts to secure an independent state.

3: Most people don't realize that everyone living in the whole region formerly known as the "British Mandate of Palestine" has only been there at most since the late part of the 19th century. The area was mostly arid desert, swamp, and other uninhabitable mess that the Ottomans never cared to reclaim and use (too expensive, and they didn't care) until the Zionist movement fueled by American, German, and Russian Jewish money, set out to reclaim the area. The only people who were there since the Roman empire desolated the land, before the Zionists came to reclaim it (under purchase from the Turkish Ottoman Empire, it was bought, and then the British declared that invalid as they conquered the Ottomans, they took all that land into their 'mandate') were a sparse few Bedouin tribes who did not establish permanent settlements.

Even if this was true, it doesn't change the fact that the establishment and expansion of the Israeli state resulted in the displacement of rather a lot of previous inhabitants, to say the least; the sheer quantity of refugee camps and groups that have come out of Palestine since 1949 are a testament to this. But it's not, I'm afraid; you're suggesting that the Zionists were the first people in the area to arrive in significant numbers, which is incorrect, and that they had a fundamental right to the land (reclaim, you say), which is also incorrect.

4: Most people don't realize "palestinians" are really Egyptians, Syrians, Lebanese, and Saudi's, at the most 3 or 4 generations having lived in the land, all of which during time when it was either purchased by or mandated for the use by Jews to begin with, hence they were never autonomous there and have always known they'd have to live with Jews. Neither group was "there first", these arabs came along with the early Zionists for cheap living and to find work and to escape persecution, they were really rude and killed Jews at random and were hell bent on taking over though, not really friendly folks but meh. There you have it.

And Israelis are, in many cases, (depending on whether they're Ashkenzi or Sephardic, I guess) a collection of Europeans, Africans and possibly those of Middle Eastern origin who have come from even further away, even more recently. Your point concerning the demographics of the area is complete and absolute tripe; you're pulling those facts out of thin air.

I cite this document as evidence, as it quite clearly shows that in the 1890s, when the Zionist movement began, the Jewish population was roughly 1/10 of that of the Muslim population in the area. Even the number of Muslims in the area from 90 years before that, 1800, is far higher than the number of Jewish immigrants in 1890; it is indisputable that there was a pre-existent population in the area, and your suggestions that the Arabs only arrived with the Zionists is beyond ridiculous; it's an outright lie and fabrication.

Your suggestion about the Arabs reaction to Zionist settlement is also wrong; initially, at least, relations were quite good, since the only interaction was between farming communities. Violence and animosity only began with the introduction of nationalism.

5: Most people don't know these people are kept 'refugees' outside the legal definition, as a refugee cannot be a descendant of a person who lived somewhere. Where someone is born is where they are a citizen. Thus, these 'palestinian refugees' today are in fact native of their host country, yet are prohibited citizenship by them and persecuted (see syrian shelling of palestinians, hezbollah anti-palestinian actions against camps in lebanon, saudi and egyptian crimes against them, these go unnoticed by the major news outlets mostly.) as their host countries do not want to add a bunch of poverty stricken people raised to be terrorists into their citizenry. Also, they are used regularly as a weapon against the Jewish state, through propaganda as can be demonstrated by the existence of this thread and the "pro-palestinian movement". Which can essentially be summed up as "Replace Jews with Muslims" movement, as there are no "palestinians". Just people getting royally screwed by the international community to use against Jews.

So what you're saying is that because the children of refugees know nothing but oppression, that gives the Israeli state a right to continue oppressing them and obliging other nations to take them in because Israel won't. If there's one thing you can't take, it's the moral high ground.

In fact, you're incorrect. The UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees states that a refugee is "A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it." In this case, the latter applies; as a result of illegal Israeli expansion and what can only be described as persecution, there is no longer a Palestinian state under which they are able to exist. 'Former habitual residence' in this case doesn't apply, since a refugee camp does not exist legally as a permanent, stable domicile. So legally and morally speaking, you're in the wrong.

6: 'Palestinians' will only have freedom when we completely ignore this nonsense coming from the rest of the world, defeat the evil forces bent on using them as human ordinance against the Jewish state, and force their host nations to accept that they were born there, and they are citizens there, regardless of how poor they are or how much terrorism they've been trained to do on their hosts behalf. The Gaza blockade will only come down and people there will only live in peace with Hamas dead and gone, and the IDF back on the streets. This is a clearly proven solution, leftists are counter-intuitive on this point.

I'm afraid to say that from a purely rational perspective, the nonsense in this situation is your stance concerning the matter. Firstly, you describe 'evil forces' and state that 'leftists are counter-intuitive on this point'. These are both subjective statements, and unless there is objective evidence to support them, they are both nothing more than your personal opinions. Your personal opinions are wholly irrelevant in a matter of international significance, I'm afraid.

You also state that 'people there will only live in peace with Hamas dead and gone, and the IDF back on the streets'. This is an assumption, with no evidence to back it up. On the other hand, what I can say is that the First Intifada, which occurred when the militant Hamas did not exist as a major force, its place taken by the diplomatic Fatah, happened when the IDF was 'back on the streets', as you say. As such, where you are unable to provide evidence of the fact that the IDF's presence creates stability, I can provide evidence that it does much the opposite.

Thirdly, you state that 'regardless of how poor they are', Palestinians will only be given freedom when they submit to Israeli rule. Is that an admission, then, that your opinions and arguments are underlined by the belief that Palestinian welfare is irrelevant in the face of Israeli expansionary desires?

7: If a person really wanted to see them stop suffering, they wouldn't be supporting the very terrorist oligarchs and monarchs who are fueling this entire conflict with their greed and hate.

But again, you're making another assumption. If there was no popular support within the Palestinians for a movement against the Israelis, and the only people causing suffering in the region were 'terrorist oligarchs (?) and monarchs (??)', why on earth does Hamas have such extensive support amongst the Palestinians (as the 2006 elections showed) and such a large recruitment base? Hamas isn't a terrorist super-organisation, it is, fundamentally, an independence movement. Let's not try and cover that up under empty claims of global conspiracy and 'terrorist oligarchy'.

8: If all they really want is for there not to be a Jewish state, well, then they'll see reason to continue this nightmare for the 'palestinians' while pretending to be on their side. Dishonorable to say the least.

Again, an assumption. Why on earth would activists from far flung countries want Israel as a country to disappear? Many of these people would be Western Christians for whom. purely pragmatically, a powerful Israeli superstate in the Middle East would be beneficial, and yet even they choose to set sail against the odds to provide Palestinian civilians with basic needs that the Israelis are depriving them of. They're not exactly asking for caviare here; when civilians lack building materials, there's obviously a problem.

How you've come to the conclusion that human rights activists are actually part of a global conspiracy to topple the Israeli nation is beyond me; if I was talking to you face to face, I'd call you a lunatic. What you need to do, as an Israeli, is to stop being so introspective, because while there are Palestinians out there who are hell bent on the destruction of Israel, the vast, vast majority of the Palestinian populace are simply tired and miserable of seeing their nation and land taken from them and being oppressed by the Israeli nation. The Israelis always portray themselves as the persecuted; how can they keep that pretence up as they set up wire fences around Palestinian compounds and deprive Palestinians of basic necessities like their homes and food, going on to round them up in camps and prisons? It sounds too much like the persecution of the Jews in Nazi Europe to me to be comfortable or acceptable.

And dishonourable? What's dishonourable is the fact that the IDF regularly persecute and open fire on innocent civilians in a wholly unjustifiable and illegal manner.

[Empires Empire]

And dishonourable? What's dishonourable is the fact that the IDF regularly persecute and open fire on innocent civilians in a wholly unjustifiable and illegal manner.

Wow, that entire rant was all way too long to debunk, and so wholly biased in its wording it's just readily apparent that nothing will change your mind.
A few points for the reading public however:
Your suggestion about the number of Arabs in the region to the original Zionist pioneers is quite correct, however, those are the Bedouin and Druze populations (Which I mentioned anyways, as well as mentioning their nomadic nature and lack of permanent settlements, did you read?), which are happy Israeli citizens and serve in the Army now. The unhappy Arabs are not in the least indigenous.
You even admit that there never was a 'palestine' or 'palestinians', the whole thing was invented by Arafat only a few decades ago, and then go on to claim they have some ancestral right to a country there.
You act like Israel kicked out those "refugees." We asked the Arabs living there to all stay with us and help us build a nation. (Note, lots did stay, they're Israeli citizens, they live really good lives and serve in the Knesset even) The treacherous 'refugee' people are the ones who left voluntarily at the behest of the Arab League to help clear the path for an invasion and provide local intelligence. These people accepted, clearly choosing a side. They left and went to camps in the countries that told them to leave. The Arab League lost. They're still in camps (Which look more like small cities now, they have duplexes and internet service and plenty of luxury cars somehow in their 'refugee camps'). These camps by the way, are not in Israel, but in Arab countries, it's the Arabs who asked them to come there and refuse to grant them citizenship, telling them 'The only way you get a passport is if all Jews die'. Arab Israelis live in these funny things called 'cities', you may have heard of them. PA Arabs also live in cities, though not as nice of cities, Israeli Arabs have it better. The only ones in camps with barbed wire are those who chose to 'flee to refuge' in the 'welcoming arms' of the (would be) conquering Arab nations. How's that our fault?
No Israeli Arab is "persecuted", that's insane. We don't persecute people slowly, we destroy them utterly. The fact that they're all ALIVE signifies our complete LACK of intention to kill them. So stop saying genocide.
Innocent civilians by the way, do not violate a military cordon, that makes them no longer innocent. Now they're stupid civilians in violation of an order punishable with lethal force. If I did that I'd be shot by whatever country I did it to, that's OK. Deal with it. US does the same. Let's see you guys bat an eyelash in the UN at Saudi's stoning women for having sex, or cutting off their hands for driving a car? No? Then shut it about the 'violence'. It's not like we rate even in the top 100 most violent countries in the world, and you don't say word 1 to them. NATO shoots more 'civilians' in the average afternoon with all its operational theaters than Israel does in a year.
And saying somehow the first intifada means that having the IDF occupy Gaza doesn't work, that would be a very narrow minded view of how the intifada started, who backed and instigated it, and of the non-existent difference between hamas and fatah outside of that hamas is much more strict upon its citizens, both are terrorist groups, and leaving fatah around is as much of a mistake as leaving hamas around now.

You wonder why we're so defensive, ever try talking to a brick wall that doesn't recognize your legitimacy as a people and will take any excuse to spin something to that ends? It gets pretty boring. Like a broken record.

Admittedly though, one thing you got right was the anti-Turkish and anti-muslim rhetoric. I disapprove of that also. Note I went on about how insane it is for people to say 'religious freedom' and 'ban headscarf' in the same sentence. I don't approve of the bias one way or the other, people are people and I view things fairly. You might want to take a lesson from that hm?

[Kemaliste]

Thanks to traitor government. When my country gains its fully independence and give up to be dependent to foreign powers through a patriot revolution, Turkey will be a MORE respectful country and that's what Israel should be worried about then.

'Independence'? This is particularly amusing, because your statements actually go against some very basic tenets of Kemalism.

Yes, nationalism is a component of Kemalism. But in fact, what you're proposing is that Turkey sever all ties with the US, and establish itself as a militant state asserting its regional dominance through jingoism. That's ridiculous; Kemalism's intent was to create a coherent Turkish nation capable of retaining its own identity, granted, but Turkish involvement in internationally stable bodies like NATO and maintaining regional peace by accommodating US forces both promote concepts of international stability and Turkish participation in international affairs as a stabilising factor.

Kemalism aims to create an internally and externally stable, coherent and responsible Turkish nation that advances, sociopolitically and technologically, with the rest of the Western world. Accommodating US forces does not infringe upon, and indeed aids, these aims; on the other hand, devastating the region with revolutionary conflict creates internal and external divisions and instability that actually go against Ataturk's original goals. Your aim is to divide the nation of Turkey, creating conflict between the introspective extremists and the worldly, and thus external conflict between Turkey and the rest of the world; as such, your aims can't be said to be Kemalist.

Well, you're exlaining very good. But I want to ask something, who are you to question my being Kemalist, I gave my life to principles of Ataturk, I was educated by his principles, his book ( Nutuk ) always stays near my bad and I've read it at least more than 10 times. I don't even want to mention that my grand grandmom (who still lives) lived in Ataturk's time and frequently talk about him to me. Now, I advice you to be more careful about your words like '' You can't be a Kemalist '' well you couldn't dare say this in front of me.

Kemalist revolution is a event that created a new, independent and free nation from ruin. Turkish nationalists under the commandership of great leader waved the rebellion flag with a great support from Turkish nation against invaders. Kemalism is the first bullet sticked in imperialist movements. And it doesn't really urge us to be a dog of the west. Ataturk pulled through the Turkish nation from the cruelty and hegemony of imperialism and capitalism.

Ataturk during his military life, considered that the Turkish nation and humanity suffered from the colonialist and imperialistic Europe, and defended that the Turkish nation shall be born as a sun in the civilization horizon in future and this will in service of humanity. And also, this civilization shall replace with the western imperialistic civilization as a result of this, the oppressed nations shall saved from the western imperialistic civilization. His struggle of imperialism became the sample for the oppressed nations.

Kemalism was founded as a '' anti-imperialist '' resistance at all. And western people like you are trying to take advtantage of its modernist principles. Yes, Ataturk wanted to bring western standards, but he didn't make Turkey servant of other nations. He created a self-sufficient nation, who produces its needs itself. Kemalist Turkey found the first war plane manufacture company and began to produce its planes itself until its closure when Kemalist power was fallen down by a western-puppet government in 1950.

Sorry, today Kemalists are anti-NATO, anti-USA and anti-EU because they're trying to rule Turkey as they want. Whoever you ask from Kemalist people, they will not give a different answer. Look at Kemalist pages in facebook if you want and you will see it. In the biggest Kemalist walk in 2007, millions of Kemalist shouted as'' Neither EU, nor USA. Fully independent Turkey! '' considering the government is a puppet of EU and USA. If you say that you know Kemalism better than all of us, go away because you don't even deserve to pronounce this word. We revolutionists are the followers of great leader Ataturk and your adress is not to Kemalist patriots if you want to make a -easy to be controlled- Turkey which USA, NATO and EU do via conservative governments for 60 years since the fall of Kemalist power. Kemalist Turkey never involves in invasions of countries. Kemalist Turkey is never interested in internals of other nations. But today we've come to war line with Syria and Israel without any reason because of pro-american politics. After Turkey left Kemalism, it began to transform into the imperialist nations which it fought against in Independence War.

Freedom and independence are my personality. I am a man filled with the love of independence which is my nation's greatest and my ancestors' most precious legacy. This love of mine is known by those who are closely familiar with every branch of my family and my private and professional life from my childhood days till now. In my opinion, in order for honor, personality, pride and humanity to come into existence and survive in a nation, it certainly has to have its freedom and independence. I personally consider very important to these virtues I have mentioned. And in order to argue that I have these innate virtues, I consider it to be a prerequisite that my nation be endowed with the same virtues. I must remain as the son of an independent nation in order to survive. That’s why, to me, national independence is a matter of life or death. If the interests of my nation and homeland require it, I assess the relations of friendship and politics with every nation in humanity with great sincerity. However, I would be the inexorable enemy of any nation wanting to enslave my nation until I make them give up their desire.